Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
The constitutional settlement is clear in my view (although the courts have the final say). The constitutional settlement is a matter for the Westminster parliament. Votes for another body don’t carry weight in determining whether there should be another vote: it’s just a political club. Otherwise - reductio ad absurbum - we should declare war on Germany because Handforth Parish Council votes for it.
That being said - as I write in my header before the last referendum - the lesson from Ireland is that grudging change doesn’t work. You need to get ahead of the curve, agree a settlement and get democratic buy-in.
The solution is a Royal Commission on Constitutional Reform that puts together a recommendation on how to recast the British state. That should then be put to a vote as a package - and all the constituent countries get to vote on it.
I’d imagine that will take several years to work through and will be complicated. So it neatly punts the problem into the long grass from Boris Johnson’s perspective. But even he gets to do the right thing occasionally, even if by accident.
What about the point of the article that if it does get punted into the long grass then it will be a Starmer (or equivalent) in Downing Street when it gets taken out of the grass; at which point we're not just looking at a referendum but most likely electoral reform etc tied with it too.
As ydoethur pointed out, electoral reform does normally occur due to partisan interest not the rights or wrongs of it. If Scotland goes then England won't have a Tory majority forever, the parties will reposition themselves and the pendulum will swing such that when Labour enters Downing Street they'll have a majority in the Commons and as such no reason (like Blair 1997) to engage in electoral reform.
But if this gets punted to the long grass, if Labour are in charge but only able to get a minority - and facing the loss of their partners that give them the majority, then its naive to assume only a Referendum will be dealt with.
The 'price' of punting this issue will be steep and not just upsetting the Scots.
Instead of a long grass "constitutional convention" that is designed to drone on forever and not actually deliver, could there not be a faster route? It should not take years to decide on proposed alternative settlements for GB (as NI has already been cast off). Commission the commission this summer. Report next Spring, vote in 2023 before an autumn general election. Done.
If there's a referendum by 2023 then I think that's agreeing to a referendum, even if there's stuff like a convention before then.
By kicking it into the long grass I'd take that to mean a referendum is denied until after the next General Election at the earliest.
I wouldn’t say it’s denying a referendum - it’s changing the question.
But I think Scots are fair minded enough to accept a delay if they know they’ll get a fair vote on the proposal.
I don't think people are cognisient of what fine margins all the parties are working with in Scotland.
The SNP got 46% of the Constituency vote in 2016 and that was not enough to sweep to Constituency seats.
If they 'only' get 46% again then increased Unionist tactical voting would see them lose constituency seats and their list vote is plunging so they might not make them up there.
The Greens massively underperformed their polling in 2016, they got double digit scores in the polls before limping in with 6.5%. But if they did get even a couple of points increase then the could massively increase their representation.
For Con and Lab their constituency vote of 22%ish is a crucial inflection point. Get above that and they can make gains from the SNP, dip even a little bit below that and they can suffer a bunch of constituency losses.
There is a lot of marginal constituencies in Scotland. People confuse a 23 point vote lead with a dominat position.
I agree with this completely. This election is very finely balanced and small margins are going to have a big effect on the balance of the Parliament. That is why we need to focus on the overall vote. The peculiarities of a slightly weird 2 vote system cannot determine what happens next.
FWIW I think that the Greens will underperform again. Last time there was at least a nod and a wink that this might not be the worst idea for independence supporters on the list. This time the whole SNP campaign is two votes for the SNP. Its almost as if Sturgeon had anticipated that Alba was coming and wanted to shut that door firmly.
Hard to imagine why Sturgeon wants the suicide SNP TWO policy other than the fact that if ALBA get seats she will not be able to kick Indyref2 down the road for another 5 years. She is bricking it and does not want a big majority as she prefers waffle and the status quo. I think ALBA will do a lot better than current expectations, just a pity they did not get started a bit earlier. SNP need cleared out , Sturgeon will run them into the ground for personal gain along with her odious creep of a better half.
Someone told me yesterday that an SNP candidate had said they didn't need to worry about what currency to use after the referendum because everyone uses plastic....
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi says ventilators are "not working effectively" and the hospital will run out of oxygen in less than an hour. 60 lives are at risk - ANI
BREAKING: 2 New Delhi hospitals treating COVID-19 patients issue SOS, say they're running out of oxygen
---
And in the Far East, COVID on the rise.
BREAKING: Japanese government declares state of emergency in Tokyo, Osaka, Hyogo, and Kyoto due to coronavirus
NEW: Thailand reports 2,070 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record
This still has some way to go globally if my SEIR fag packet calcs are anywhere near correct. NPIs delay infection; vaccines prevent it (slowly) only NPIs and massive takeup can really crush it
Yes, it's probably into July before we could safely open up - with most of the population vacinnated.
I don't think people should be going abroad on holiday until July.
Europe's wave seems to have peaked, though still active in the Balkans. The EU now has 20% vaccination, so about 2 months behind us and on a steeply rising trend. I expect that by July most of Europe will be in as good of place as we are now. It is travel to the rest of the world that is going to be a problem.
Yes, so you agree with me then - July for Europe, and a wait-and-see approach for RoW.
Personally, I am not going past the Isle of Wight this summer, but have booked a late autumn break in Madeira.
I am hoping to go further afield in 2022.
North Devon for me.
I am hoping to get to Bulgaria in September/October.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
How delightful to wake to a Philip Thompson thread piece, long one of our most thoughtful and provocative posters.
I'd like to stay longer to debate it but the sun is up in Gloucestershire, and possibly elsewhere too, so I'll just have to say I concur but doubt the Government will have the wisdom to listen to his words.
And will that I'll have to say play nicely and I'll catch you all later.
Someone told me yesterday that an SNP candidate had said they didn't need to worry about what currency to use after the referendum because everyone uses plastic....
Yes, to an extent that is true. I have hardly handled cash for a year, other than buying fish and chips, and contributing to leaving presents at work.
Various countries are looking at government backed electronic currencies, and I can see it is only a matter of time until we shop with whatever currency we feel like. It is a trend that could lead to us having more currencies in the world or a lot fewer.
Unless in time exchange rate fluctuations disappear as well it will only make the downsides more stark.
An electronic currency backed by a Central Bank has the potential to drive out lesser competitors. It could easily become the new Gold Standard. I am highly sceptical of Bitcoin (not least because of environmental issues) but one reason for its rise in value is that it is not subject to QE or other debasement.
Because my professional life isn't complicated enough.
British finance minister Rishi Sunak told the Bank of England on Monday to look at the case for a new “Britcoin”, or central bank-backed digital currency, aimed at tackling some of the challenges posed by cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin.
A BoE-backed digital version of sterling would potentially allow businesses and consumers to hold accounts directly with the bank and to sidestep others when making payments, upending the lenders' role in the financial system.
"We're launching a new taskforce between the Treasury and the Bank of England to coordinate exploratory work on a potential central bank digital currency (CBDC)," Sunak told a financial industry conference.
Soon after, Sunak tweeted the single word "Britcoin" in reply to the finance ministry's announcement of the taskforce.
Other central banks are also looking at whether to set up digital versions of their own currencies, essentially widening access to central bank funds which only commercial banks can use at present. This could speed up domestic and foreign payments and reduce financial stability risks.
China is a front-runner to launch a CBDC. Last week the European Central Bank said it was studying an electronic form of cash to complement banknotes and coins but any launch was still several years away.
The BoE said a digital version of sterling would not replace either physical cash or existing bank accounts.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
No surprise that Charles is for the establishment and against democracy, these people gained all their loot by these methods and are desperate to hang onto their ill gotten gains and keep the means to increase them. They hate democracy with a vengance and much prefer the chumocracy.
I’m pro democracy, sweetie. The people voted and you don’t get a do-over
Keep kidding yourself, honey pie. England voted for it , not the people of Scotland but then I would not expect you to know the difference.
I don't think people are cognisient of what fine margins all the parties are working with in Scotland.
The SNP got 46% of the Constituency vote in 2016 and that was not enough to sweep to Constituency seats.
If they 'only' get 46% again then increased Unionist tactical voting would see them lose constituency seats and their list vote is plunging so they might not make them up there.
The Greens massively underperformed their polling in 2016, they got double digit scores in the polls before limping in with 6.5%. But if they did get even a couple of points increase then the could massively increase their representation.
For Con and Lab their constituency vote of 22%ish is a crucial inflection point. Get above that and they can make gains from the SNP, dip even a little bit below that and they can suffer a bunch of constituency losses.
There is a lot of marginal constituencies in Scotland. People confuse a 23 point vote lead with a dominat position.
I was out for a walk with a pro Indy pal yesterday and he said he’d had quite a depressing chat with an SNP activist from Glasgow Southside who confessed, contra the usual patter, that they they weren’t getting a great response on the doorsteps and were quite worried about Nicola’s seat. Govanhill has been a favourite drum to beat for anti SNPers for years and with the likes of Wings happily pushing a decapitate Sturgeon strategy, things aren’t quite as rosy as one would hope. Sarwar also seems effective at organising voting in minority sections of the community; I don’t say that in an accusatory way as the SNP have also been good at this in the past. Prime anecdata I know, but a straw in the wind perhaps..
Anyhoo, from a pro Indy POV, more comforting if entirely expected confirmation of Sarwar being a fairly empty vessel.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
FWIW if Labour was perceived as trying to fix the system using departing Scottish MPs I think the average English voter would be unforgiving
However, is the article arguing from a principle or form a strategic perspective? Both get squeezed in - the argument about consent; and then the argument about 'getting your blow in first' before Labour get into power - the general area of low cunning, the staple food of politics.
About principle; there are two big properly competing claims: Manifestos and election results against not holding referendums too often. With a second referendum in changed circumstances (rather than a fifth in similar ones, say) both positions are powerful and probably pretty evenly balanced.
About low cunning; All answers come from a point of view. (1) Nicola and co: They will in fact only want an Indyref2 when they can be fairly sure they can win it. They can't. So, ignore the huffing and puffing, they won't want one.
(2) Boris and co: Because of (1) above their best plan is to wait and see for now while keeping on a low boil the 'generation' argument. However keep open the secret option of calling Ref2 at theur own choice of time
(3) Labour; Have no good options as their only route to power is through the SNP. So must hope Boris's wheels come off so completely that they are the only choice. In terms of 'policy' it is a repeat of their Brexit problem: There are no good policies to have because of the mixed nature of their supporters base.
(4) Salmond: You would need a heart of stone not to laugh.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
David, I cannot think of anything , planning or otherwise that SNP have done re independence in last 5 years other than stall it. I do agree that they should be doing something useful like running the country but they are too busy lining their pockets, proposing Hate crime, Self ID bills and pandering to toerags and comic singers. There is no alternative however, listening to the opposition is very depressing , not one of them have a clue, 3rd raters to a person. We need independence to at least get rid of existing political parties and hopefully get some real ones started up.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
No surprise that Charles is for the establishment and against democracy, these people gained all their loot by these methods and are desperate to hang onto their ill gotten gains and keep the means to increase them. They hate democracy with a vengance and much prefer the chumocracy.
I’m pro democracy, sweetie. The people voted and you don’t get a do-over
I don't think people are cognisient of what fine margins all the parties are working with in Scotland.
The SNP got 46% of the Constituency vote in 2016 and that was not enough to sweep to Constituency seats.
If they 'only' get 46% again then increased Unionist tactical voting would see them lose constituency seats and their list vote is plunging so they might not make them up there.
The Greens massively underperformed their polling in 2016, they got double digit scores in the polls before limping in with 6.5%. But if they did get even a couple of points increase then the could massively increase their representation.
For Con and Lab their constituency vote of 22%ish is a crucial inflection point. Get above that and they can make gains from the SNP, dip even a little bit below that and they can suffer a bunch of constituency losses.
There is a lot of marginal constituencies in Scotland. People confuse a 23 point vote lead with a dominat position.
I agree with this completely. This election is very finely balanced and small margins are going to have a big effect on the balance of the Parliament. That is why we need to focus on the overall vote. The peculiarities of a slightly weird 2 vote system cannot determine what happens next.
FWIW I think that the Greens will underperform again. Last time there was at least a nod and a wink that this might not be the worst idea for independence supporters on the list. This time the whole SNP campaign is two votes for the SNP. Its almost as if Sturgeon had anticipated that Alba was coming and wanted to shut that door firmly.
Hard to imagine why Sturgeon wants the suicide SNP TWO policy other than the fact that if ALBA get seats she will not be able to kick Indyref2 down the road for another 5 years. She is bricking it and does not want a big majority as she prefers waffle and the status quo. I think ALBA will do a lot better than current expectations, just a pity they did not get started a bit earlier. SNP need cleared out , Sturgeon will run them into the ground for personal gain along with her odious creep of a better half.
Its her football Malcolm and she really doesn't want anyone else to play. I am surprised how little impact Alba is having. This almost non campaign brought about by Covid and the breaks for Prince Philip's funeral has really not helped them. The animosity of Sturgeon and her gang seems to be such that they will be encouraging supporters to vote for almost anyone else.
There are strong rumours that things are not happy chez Sturgeon and her ducking out of the leaders debate is perhaps evidence of that. She has not been her usual resilient self recently.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
Insofar as ‘demos’ is an easily defined entity, where does the Scottish demos fit in to this glib diagram?
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
No surprise that Charles is for the establishment and against democracy, these people gained all their loot by these methods and are desperate to hang onto their ill gotten gains and keep the means to increase them. They hate democracy with a vengance and much prefer the chumocracy.
I’m pro democracy, sweetie. The people voted and you don’t get a do-over
Keep kidding yourself, honey pie. England voted for it , not the people of Scotland but then I would not expect you to know the difference.
There seems to be an assumption that Lab could just change the electoral system. But surely the precedent has now been long set that this would need a referendum?
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
The UK demos voted for Tony Blair's Labour Government.
It did. I disagreed with them - I knew Tony from the early 90s and he was a liar.
That was 30 years ago. How old were you? You hadn't had your jab as of a couple of weeks ago.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
David, I cannot think of anything , planning or otherwise that SNP have done re independence in last 5 years other than stall it. I do agree that they should be doing something useful like running the country but they are too busy lining their pockets, proposing Hate crime, Self ID bills and pandering to toerags and comic singers. There is no alternative however, listening to the opposition is very depressing , not one of them have a clue, 3rd raters to a person. We need independence to at least get rid of existing political parties and hopefully get some real ones started up.
They have tried to buy more votes and short term popularity with freebies, the latest being bonuses for NHS staff and wage increases paid out of the Covid funds that were supposed to be helping business to recover. Quite how those increased wages are going to be paid next year is obviously a question for another day. A government serious about independence might have been focused on how Scotland would pay its way afterwards and how we are going to develop the jobs of the future but there has been none of that.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
No surprise that Charles is for the establishment and against democracy, these people gained all their loot by these methods and are desperate to hang onto their ill gotten gains and keep the means to increase them. They hate democracy with a vengance and much prefer the chumocracy.
I’m pro democracy, sweetie. The people voted and you don’t get a do-over
What if the people vote for a do-over?
You can’t interpret an election for the Scottish parliament to be a vote on a single issue. There could be all sorts of reasons for not wanting Douglas Ross as first minister
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
Insofar as ‘demos’ is an easily defined entity, where does the Scottish demos fit in to this glib diagram?
There isn’t one. That’s exactly the question that was asked - are you part of the UK demos or are you a separate Scottish demos
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
The UK demos voted for Tony Blair's Labour Government.
It did. I disagreed with them - I knew Tony from the early 90s and he was a liar.
That was 30 years ago. How old were you? You hadn't had your jab as of a couple of weeks ago.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
No surprise that Charles is for the establishment and against democracy, these people gained all their loot by these methods and are desperate to hang onto their ill gotten gains and keep the means to increase them. They hate democracy with a vengance and much prefer the chumocracy.
I’m pro democracy, sweetie. The people voted and you don’t get a do-over
Keep kidding yourself, honey pie. England voted for it , not the people of Scotland but then I would not expect you to know the difference.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
Insofar as ‘demos’ is an easily defined entity, where does the Scottish demos fit in to this glib diagram?
There isn’t one. That’s exactly the question that was asked - are you part of the UK demos or are you a separate Scottish demos
There’s not a Scottish demos? You’ve perhaps missed the upcoming elections involving ‘the people of a nation regarded as a political unit’?
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
I don't think people are cognisient of what fine margins all the parties are working with in Scotland.
The SNP got 46% of the Constituency vote in 2016 and that was not enough to sweep to Constituency seats.
If they 'only' get 46% again then increased Unionist tactical voting would see them lose constituency seats and their list vote is plunging so they might not make them up there.
The Greens massively underperformed their polling in 2016, they got double digit scores in the polls before limping in with 6.5%. But if they did get even a couple of points increase then the could massively increase their representation.
For Con and Lab their constituency vote of 22%ish is a crucial inflection point. Get above that and they can make gains from the SNP, dip even a little bit below that and they can suffer a bunch of constituency losses.
There is a lot of marginal constituencies in Scotland. People confuse a 23 point vote lead with a dominat position.
I was out for a walk with a pro Indy pal yesterday and he said he’d had quite a depressing chat with an SNP activist from Glasgow Southside who confessed, contra the usual patter, that they they weren’t getting a great response on the doorsteps and were quite worried about Nicola’s seat. Govanhill has been a favourite drum to beat for anti SNPers for years and with the likes of Wings happily pushing a decapitate Sturgeon strategy, things aren’t quite as rosy as one would hope. Sarwar also seems effective at organising voting in minority sections of the community; I don’t say that in an accusatory way as the SNP have also been good at this in the past. Prime anecdata I know, but a straw in the wind perhaps..
Anyhoo, from a pro Indy POV, more comforting if entirely expected confirmation of Sarwar being a fairly empty vessel.
TUD would be a great favour if Sarwar put her out , she is a real liability now. Unfortunately it would then be likely Macbeth would get the leadership and the same bunch of supine roasters would remain in place. It really needs a decent contingent of ALBA seats to put a rocket up their arses and make them do something other than the mince they are mucking about with at present.
(2) Boris and co: Because of (1) above their best plan is to wait and see for now while keeping on a low boil the 'generation' argument. However keep open the secret option of calling Ref2 at theur own choice of time
The 'generation' argument is rapidly running out of road. There is a peculiar stripe of Englishman (it could be an Englishwoman I suppose but this particular need seems to be exclusively male) who wants to do a Fritzl and hang on to Scotland no matter what. They would be better off having it soon and quickly. The longer it is denied on specious grounds the more like the Scottish people are to vote yes. A quicker and proximate vote stands a much better chance of being won by the English with the destruction of Sturgeon and possibly the SNP into the bargain.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Was he drunk?
No he is just a twat that is unfit for serious office.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
David, I cannot think of anything , planning or otherwise that SNP have done re independence in last 5 years other than stall it. I do agree that they should be doing something useful like running the country but they are too busy lining their pockets, proposing Hate crime, Self ID bills and pandering to toerags and comic singers. There is no alternative however, listening to the opposition is very depressing , not one of them have a clue, 3rd raters to a person. We need independence to at least get rid of existing political parties and hopefully get some real ones started up.
They have tried to buy more votes and short term popularity with freebies, the latest being bonuses for NHS staff and wage increases paid out of the Covid funds that were supposed to be helping business to recover. Quite how those increased wages are going to be paid next year is obviously a question for another day. A government serious about independence might have been focused on how Scotland would pay its way afterwards and how we are going to develop the jobs of the future but there has been none of that.
Yes the only thing missing so far is the free unicorn. Labour seem to be similar, not sure where they are going to get all these rich people to pay for it.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
No surprise that Charles is for the establishment and against democracy, these people gained all their loot by these methods and are desperate to hang onto their ill gotten gains and keep the means to increase them. They hate democracy with a vengance and much prefer the chumocracy.
I’m pro democracy, sweetie. The people voted and you don’t get a do-over
What if the people vote for a do-over?
You can’t interpret an election for the Scottish parliament to be a vote on a single issue. There could be all sorts of reasons for not wanting Douglas Ross as first minister
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
The UK demos voted for Tony Blair's Labour Government.
It did. I disagreed with them - I knew Tony from the early 90s and he was a liar.
That was 30 years ago. How old were you? You hadn't had your jab as of a couple of weeks ago.
Precocious teenager 😂
Forgive me then if I discount such a teenager's views on the matter.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
I don't think people are cognisient of what fine margins all the parties are working with in Scotland.
The SNP got 46% of the Constituency vote in 2016 and that was not enough to sweep to Constituency seats.
If they 'only' get 46% again then increased Unionist tactical voting would see them lose constituency seats and their list vote is plunging so they might not make them up there.
The Greens massively underperformed their polling in 2016, they got double digit scores in the polls before limping in with 6.5%. But if they did get even a couple of points increase then the could massively increase their representation.
For Con and Lab their constituency vote of 22%ish is a crucial inflection point. Get above that and they can make gains from the SNP, dip even a little bit below that and they can suffer a bunch of constituency losses.
There is a lot of marginal constituencies in Scotland. People confuse a 23 point vote lead with a dominat position.
I was out for a walk with a pro Indy pal yesterday and he said he’d had quite a depressing chat with an SNP activist from Glasgow Southside who confessed, contra the usual patter, that they they weren’t getting a great response on the doorsteps and were quite worried about Nicola’s seat. Govanhill has been a favourite drum to beat for anti SNPers for years and with the likes of Wings happily pushing a decapitate Sturgeon strategy, things aren’t quite as rosy as one would hope. Sarwar also seems effective at organising voting in minority sections of the community; I don’t say that in an accusatory way as the SNP have also been good at this in the past. Prime anecdata I know, but a straw in the wind perhaps..
Anyhoo, from a pro Indy POV, more comforting if entirely expected confirmation of Sarwar being a fairly empty vessel.
TUD would be a great favour if Sarwar put her out , she is a real liability now. Unfortunately it would then be likely Macbeth would get the leadership and the same bunch of supine roasters would remain in place. It really needs a decent contingent of ALBA seats to put a rocket up their arses and make them do something other than the mince they are mucking about with at present.
Sorry Malc, we’re never going to agree on this. While I was initially open minded on voting for Alba, supporters encouraging me to get rid of SNP msps in the constituency while giving them my vote on the list aren’t really persuading me.
I don't think people are cognisient of what fine margins all the parties are working with in Scotland.
The SNP got 46% of the Constituency vote in 2016 and that was not enough to sweep to Constituency seats.
If they 'only' get 46% again then increased Unionist tactical voting would see them lose constituency seats and their list vote is plunging so they might not make them up there.
The Greens massively underperformed their polling in 2016, they got double digit scores in the polls before limping in with 6.5%. But if they did get even a couple of points increase then the could massively increase their representation.
For Con and Lab their constituency vote of 22%ish is a crucial inflection point. Get above that and they can make gains from the SNP, dip even a little bit below that and they can suffer a bunch of constituency losses.
There is a lot of marginal constituencies in Scotland. People confuse a 23 point vote lead with a dominat position.
I agree with this completely. This election is very finely balanced and small margins are going to have a big effect on the balance of the Parliament. That is why we need to focus on the overall vote. The peculiarities of a slightly weird 2 vote system cannot determine what happens next.
FWIW I think that the Greens will underperform again. Last time there was at least a nod and a wink that this might not be the worst idea for independence supporters on the list. This time the whole SNP campaign is two votes for the SNP. Its almost as if Sturgeon had anticipated that Alba was coming and wanted to shut that door firmly.
Hard to imagine why Sturgeon wants the suicide SNP TWO policy other than the fact that if ALBA get seats she will not be able to kick Indyref2 down the road for another 5 years. She is bricking it and does not want a big majority as she prefers waffle and the status quo. I think ALBA will do a lot better than current expectations, just a pity they did not get started a bit earlier. SNP need cleared out , Sturgeon will run them into the ground for personal gain along with her odious creep of a better half.
Many thanks to PT for the thread header. I'd make a couple of points, which are slightly contradictory.
Firstly, I would be very surprised if Labour introduce electoral reform. If they are in a coalition government then I think there are enough opponents on the Labour backbenches to stop any proposal, and if they have a large enough majority to force it through the motivation will dissipate.
Secondly, I think the link between the independence referendum and electoral reform is a different one to the link PT makes. Which is that they are both things that if the Tories think they are inevitable results of the next Labour government then they would be best advised to do them first, so that they have more control over how they are done.
As our often interminable arguments demonstrate there are more ways to reform the voting system than there are variants of SARS-Cov-2. Surely it would be better for Tories to make that choice, rather than leave it to their opponents.
I also think that the Tories have a lot less to fear from electoral reform than they think, or the "progressive alliance" hopes.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
The UK demos voted for Tony Blair's Labour Government.
It did. I disagreed with them - I knew Tony from the early 90s and he was a liar.
That was 30 years ago. How old were you? You hadn't had your jab as of a couple of weeks ago.
Precocious teenager 😂
Forgive me then if I discount such a teenager's views on the matter.
I asked him a question. He lied to my face. I knew he was lying and he knew I knew.
Edit: but are you really arguing that Tony Blair wasn’t a liar?
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
David, I cannot think of anything , planning or otherwise that SNP have done re independence in last 5 years other than stall it. I do agree that they should be doing something useful like running the country but they are too busy lining their pockets, proposing Hate crime, Self ID bills and pandering to toerags and comic singers. There is no alternative however, listening to the opposition is very depressing , not one of them have a clue, 3rd raters to a person. We need independence to at least get rid of existing political parties and hopefully get some real ones started up.
They have tried to buy more votes and short term popularity with freebies, the latest being bonuses for NHS staff and wage increases paid out of the Covid funds that were supposed to be helping business to recover. Quite how those increased wages are going to be paid next year is obviously a question for another day. A government serious about independence might have been focused on how Scotland would pay its way afterwards and how we are going to develop the jobs of the future but there has been none of that.
Yes the only thing missing so far is the free unicorn. Labour seem to be similar, not sure where they are going to get all these rich people to pay for it.
Surely you will be at the front of the queue Malcolm volunteering to pay even more? I mean, its for the cause. It is already getting more difficult to get consultants for the NHS who have to pay more tax here than in England. Housing costs offset that to some extent but these are dangerous waters. 8.2% of the population, 8% of the tax base, we wouldn't want that gap to widen.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
The UK demos voted for Tony Blair's Labour Government.
It did. I disagreed with them - I knew Tony from the early 90s and he was a liar.
That was 30 years ago. How old were you? You hadn't had your jab as of a couple of weeks ago.
Precocious teenager 😂
Forgive me then if I discount such a teenager's views on the matter.
I asked him a question. He lied to my face. I knew he was lying and he knew I knew.
Edit: but are you really arguing that Tony Blair wasn’t a liar?
That's really strange because I have read on here repeatedly that only Boris does this sort of thing and is a scandalous diversion from the pure and ethical standards of our political class. Are you suggesting that he is not unique and other politicians also tell untruths? Whatever next?
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
I imagine Scottish parliamentary representation is being defined as different from the Scottish Parliament, particularly in the context of Mr Palmer’s lifetime!
(2) Boris and co: Because of (1) above their best plan is to wait and see for now while keeping on a low boil the 'generation' argument. However keep open the secret option of calling Ref2 at theur own choice of time
The 'generation' argument is rapidly running out of road. There is a peculiar stripe of Englishman (it could be an Englishwoman I suppose but this particular need seems to be exclusively male) who wants to do a Fritzl and hang on to Scotland no matter what. They would be better off having it soon and quickly. The longer it is denied on specious grounds the more like the Scottish people are to vote yes. A quicker and proximate vote stands a much better chance of being won by the English with the destruction of Sturgeon and possibly the SNP into the bargain.
That's right. Also better to go while the Queen is still on the throne, because King Charles is only going to bring out the anti posh English twat vote (and yes I know he's the Duke of Rothesay and indeed Edinburgh) that Johnson hasn't already reached.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
No surprise that Charles is for the establishment and against democracy, these people gained all their loot by these methods and are desperate to hang onto their ill gotten gains and keep the means to increase them. They hate democracy with a vengance and much prefer the chumocracy.
I’m pro democracy, sweetie. The people voted and you don’t get a do-over
What if the people vote for a do-over?
You can’t interpret an election for the Scottish parliament to be a vote on a single issue. There could be all sorts of reasons for not wanting Douglas Ross as first minister
Funny that PB Tories took 2019 as vindication for getting Brexit done, in the way the Tories were proposing, when there could have been all sorts of reasons for not wanting Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister.
Something else I wanted to mention yesterday on sleaze and Boris Johnson.
I wonder whether his current halo is ephemeral? Like a lot of other people my biggest concern was, and still is, getting out of restrictions safely and returning to life. Right now I really have little or no interest in what Johnson's cronies have been up to, nor in sleaze generally.
But I think that will change.
Once we're no longer obsessing about covid, I will begin to pay more attention to the other affairs of state. Johnson is a scumbag, let's be frank, and his halo could disappear faster than a pineapple on a TSE pizza.
I don't understand the timing of all the criticisms. Apart from motivating the politically obsessed activists before the local elections, I can't see how this gains traction against a popular government who rightly or wrongly are being credited for a successful vaccine rollout. There is no alternative government in waiting - the shadow cabinet is pants.
I don't think people are cognisient of what fine margins all the parties are working with in Scotland.
The SNP got 46% of the Constituency vote in 2016 and that was not enough to sweep to Constituency seats.
If they 'only' get 46% again then increased Unionist tactical voting would see them lose constituency seats and their list vote is plunging so they might not make them up there.
The Greens massively underperformed their polling in 2016, they got double digit scores in the polls before limping in with 6.5%. But if they did get even a couple of points increase then the could massively increase their representation.
For Con and Lab their constituency vote of 22%ish is a crucial inflection point. Get above that and they can make gains from the SNP, dip even a little bit below that and they can suffer a bunch of constituency losses.
There is a lot of marginal constituencies in Scotland. People confuse a 23 point vote lead with a dominat position.
I was out for a walk with a pro Indy pal yesterday and he said he’d had quite a depressing chat with an SNP activist from Glasgow Southside who confessed, contra the usual patter, that they they weren’t getting a great response on the doorsteps and were quite worried about Nicola’s seat. Govanhill has been a favourite drum to beat for anti SNPers for years and with the likes of Wings happily pushing a decapitate Sturgeon strategy, things aren’t quite as rosy as one would hope. Sarwar also seems effective at organising voting in minority sections of the community; I don’t say that in an accusatory way as the SNP have also been good at this in the past. Prime anecdata I know, but a straw in the wind perhaps..
Anyhoo, from a pro Indy POV, more comforting if entirely expected confirmation of Sarwar being a fairly empty vessel.
TUD would be a great favour if Sarwar put her out , she is a real liability now. Unfortunately it would then be likely Macbeth would get the leadership and the same bunch of supine roasters would remain in place. It really needs a decent contingent of ALBA seats to put a rocket up their arses and make them do something other than the mince they are mucking about with at present.
Sorry Malc, we’re never going to agree on this. While I was initially open minded on voting for Alba, supporters encouraging me to get rid of SNP msps in the constituency while giving them my vote on the list aren’t really persuading me.
SNP that was doing the majority of it TUD, scared they lose their cushy numbers. Wall to wall trolls saying SNP 1 & 2, versus a few ALBA people wanting rid of Sturgeon and Robertson. Most ALBA people will vote SNP 1, even I will hold my nose and vote for them. If only the SNP were as generous and interested in independence rather than wasting votes so they do not get a majority and can kick Indyref2 into the long grass for another 5 years on the gravy train. Personally I hope we do not see Macbeth at the top table again and a few others disappear after the court cases flush them out.
(2) Boris and co: Because of (1) above their best plan is to wait and see for now while keeping on a low boil the 'generation' argument. However keep open the secret option of calling Ref2 at theur own choice of time
The 'generation' argument is rapidly running out of road. There is a peculiar stripe of Englishman (it could be an Englishwoman I suppose but this particular need seems to be exclusively male) who wants to do a Fritzl and hang on to Scotland no matter what. They would be better off having it soon and quickly. The longer it is denied on specious grounds the more like the Scottish people are to vote yes. A quicker and proximate vote stands a much better chance of being won by the English with the destruction of Sturgeon and possibly the SNP into the bargain.
I think this is right. I give "No" a slight favourite's chance in a Sindy Ref held in 22 or 23. But if Holyrood delivers the mandate for it which is then denied, I think a "Yes" in an eventual delayed Ref becomes the clear favourite.
And the "generation" argument is hogwash. Brexit + a Holyrood mandate is a compelling rationale. There seems to be a view amongst some who wish to deny a Ref on these grounds that the Scots will otherwise be forever demanding and getting a vote on independence and then voting "No" to it. Kind of trolling us all like this. This betrays a very shallow and jaundiced view of the Scottish people.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
FWIW if Labour was perceived as trying to fix the system using departing Scottish MPs I think the average English voter would be unforgiving
I don't think you speak for the average voter, Charles.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
No surprise that Charles is for the establishment and against democracy, these people gained all their loot by these methods and are desperate to hang onto their ill gotten gains and keep the means to increase them. They hate democracy with a vengance and much prefer the chumocracy.
I’m pro democracy, sweetie. The people voted and you don’t get a do-over
What if the people vote for a do-over?
You can’t interpret an election for the Scottish parliament to be a vote on a single issue. There could be all sorts of reasons for not wanting Douglas Ross as first minister
Funny that PB Tories took 2019 as vindication for getting Brexit done, in the way the Tories were proposing, when there could have been all sorts of reasons for not wanting Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister.
Not just PB Tories, wasn’t get Brexit done more or less the slogan of the Tory party in the 2019 ge?
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Was he drunk?
I'm pretty sure he's capable of generating random verbiage when sober, so who knows ?
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
David, I cannot think of anything , planning or otherwise that SNP have done re independence in last 5 years other than stall it. I do agree that they should be doing something useful like running the country but they are too busy lining their pockets, proposing Hate crime, Self ID bills and pandering to toerags and comic singers. There is no alternative however, listening to the opposition is very depressing , not one of them have a clue, 3rd raters to a person. We need independence to at least get rid of existing political parties and hopefully get some real ones started up.
They have tried to buy more votes and short term popularity with freebies, the latest being bonuses for NHS staff and wage increases paid out of the Covid funds that were supposed to be helping business to recover. Quite how those increased wages are going to be paid next year is obviously a question for another day. A government serious about independence might have been focused on how Scotland would pay its way afterwards and how we are going to develop the jobs of the future but there has been none of that.
Yes the only thing missing so far is the free unicorn. Labour seem to be similar, not sure where they are going to get all these rich people to pay for it.
Surely you will be at the front of the queue Malcolm volunteering to pay even more? I mean, its for the cause. It is already getting more difficult to get consultants for the NHS who have to pay more tax here than in England. Housing costs offset that to some extent but these are dangerous waters. 8.2% of the population, 8% of the tax base, we wouldn't want that gap to widen.
I have to say I am already paying an awful lot of tax and think it is way more than enough. I am all for social help etc but it can go too far. I know people who are very well off on benefits , getting way more than they would if working , free cars on flimsy excuses , etc which I also think is very wrong, especially when some get next to nothing. There are many wrongs and problems to be sorted and we do not have the politician's to do it. If I did not have grandkids locally I would be gone out of UK, I should have stayed in USA years ago when I had the chance.
Excellent article Philip and we are both very much on the same page apart from one rather important detail in as much I believe in the union while you are content for the divorce. However, I know that if HMG win the indyref2 you would see that as democracy in action
Yesterday afternoon on this forum was the most intense and enlightening discussion on independence I have been involved in and for those taking part it must have been an eye opener as topics like UK continuing to pay Scottish pensions, Scottish passports, and the effect on the Scottish border were discussed
I have to say, and with respect, to our independence supporters their lack of detail and even serious discussion on complex matters was both alarming and disturbing
As was commented that Scottish pension payments would be a matter for discussion with the RUK government will scare Scots to the point I believe this could be the SNP's poll tax on speed. Nothing could be more destabilising than creating uncertainty over responsibility for future pension payments to the Scots
The other point to watch is the recent movement against independence in the polls and whether Nicola absenting herself from the TV debate will be noticed. My wife and I have noticed, as have others, that that bubbling self confidence seems to have disappeared and she does not seem as sure of herself as she did in her daily covid conferences
However, I do agree that if the Scots vote for indyref2 then the issue must receive serious consideration by HMG and ultimately permit a section 30 application, and then go out and win for the union
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
Braindead Scotophobia. Shape up.
Yes, but no worse than the tripe that is turned out by some of the Nat Anglophobes on here. It underlines the absurdities of nationalism in general
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
The UK demos voted for Tony Blair's Labour Government.
It did. I disagreed with them - I knew Tony from the early 90s and he was a liar.
That was 30 years ago. How old were you? You hadn't had your jab as of a couple of weeks ago.
Precocious teenager 😂
Forgive me then if I discount such a teenager's views on the matter.
I asked him a question. He lied to my face. I knew he was lying and he knew I knew.
Edit: but are you really arguing that Tony Blair wasn’t a liar?
I have no opinion on the matter but you know how it is - recollections may vary.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
A good number of them from Dundee. Pretty much every public park in the City is named after them and their piles still sit in Broughty Ferry and on the Perth Road, often broken into flats these days. Scotland gained enormously, disproportionately, from the Raj.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Bold was my highlight: Its assuming indefinite SNP dominance if the SNP have a genuine grievance to stoke of Scotland's voice being denied.
If Scotland gets a referendum, but they lose it fair and square, then I think people will start to move on (while if they win it this all becomes moot).
The final paragraph matches my point. If Scotland has SNP dominance in 2024 (because Scotland was denied a referendum) then the "pragmatic" thing for a PM Starmer reliant upon the SNP to do is go for PR.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
Not a very good argument I'm afraid. In fact, not really an argument. Pretending Brexit didn't change all that is sticking your head an awfully long way down in the sand and really, really, doesn't help the unionist cause. Obviously Brexit fundamentally altered the fabric of the union and airily dismissing it as just another 'x' or 'y' is at best flippant, at worst patronising.
The answer is not to be an ostrich, Charles, but to tackle this head-on as Philip suggests. The former is merely going to fuel independence.
Did you read the rest of my post?
And “Obviously I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t a convincing argument
Scotland voted to be part of the Uk demos
The Uk demos voted not to be part of the EU demos
The UK demos voted for Tony Blair's Labour Government.
It did. I disagreed with them - I knew Tony from the early 90s and he was a liar.
That was 30 years ago. How old were you? You hadn't had your jab as of a couple of weeks ago.
Precocious teenager 😂
Forgive me then if I discount such a teenager's views on the matter.
I asked him a question. He lied to my face. I knew he was lying and he knew I knew.
Edit: but are you really arguing that Tony Blair wasn’t a liar?
That's really strange because I have read on here repeatedly that only Boris does this sort of thing and is a scandalous diversion from the pure and ethical standards of our political class. Are you suggesting that he is not unique and other politicians also tell untruths? Whatever next?
I think it is a question of degree. Half truths (particularly in the mind of the impartial observer) have always been an issue in politics. While I always opposed Blair, I think he is a third division liar in contrast with Johnson. Johnson of course, relies on and promotes the cynical view that you have expressed to cover up his duplicity and incompetence. It is a cause of great sadness to me, as a life long conservative (now with small C) that people who seem decent, moderate people such as yourself seem to find his behaviour acceptable.
(2) Boris and co: Because of (1) above their best plan is to wait and see for now while keeping on a low boil the 'generation' argument. However keep open the secret option of calling Ref2 at theur own choice of time
The 'generation' argument is rapidly running out of road. There is a peculiar stripe of Englishman (it could be an Englishwoman I suppose but this particular need seems to be exclusively male) who wants to do a Fritzl and hang on to Scotland no matter what. They would be better off having it soon and quickly. The longer it is denied on specious grounds the more like the Scottish people are to vote yes. A quicker and proximate vote stands a much better chance of being won by the English with the destruction of Sturgeon and possibly the SNP into the bargain.
That's right. Also better to go while the Queen is still on the throne, because King Charles is only going to bring out the anti posh English twat vote (and yes I know he's the Duke of Rothesay and indeed Edinburgh) that Johnson hasn't already reached.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
The constitutional settlement is clear in my view (although the courts have the final say). The constitutional settlement is a matter for the Westminster parliament. Votes for another body don’t carry weight in determining whether there should be another vote: it’s just a political club. Otherwise - reductio ad absurbum - we should declare war on Germany because Handforth Parish Council votes for it.
That being said - as I write in my header before the last referendum - the lesson from Ireland is that grudging change doesn’t work. You need to get ahead of the curve, agree a settlement and get democratic buy-in.
The solution is a Royal Commission on Constitutional Reform that puts together a recommendation on how to recast the British state. That should then be put to a vote as a package - and all the constituent countries get to vote on it.
I’d imagine that will take several years to work through and will be complicated. So it neatly punts the problem into the long grass from Boris Johnson’s perspective. But even he gets to do the right thing occasionally, even if by accident.
What about the point of the article that if it does get punted into the long grass then it will be a Starmer (or equivalent) in Downing Street when it gets taken out of the grass; at which point we're not just looking at a referendum but most likely electoral reform etc tied with it too.
As ydoethur pointed out, electoral reform does normally occur due to partisan interest not the rights or wrongs of it. If Scotland goes then England won't have a Tory majority forever, the parties will reposition themselves and the pendulum will swing such that when Labour enters Downing Street they'll have a majority in the Commons and as such no reason (like Blair 1997) to engage in electoral reform.
But if this gets punted to the long grass, if Labour are in charge but only able to get a minority - and facing the loss of their partners that give them the majority, then its naive to assume only a Referendum will be dealt with.
The 'price' of punting this issue will be steep and not just upsetting the Scots.
Instead of a long grass "constitutional convention" that is designed to drone on forever and not actually deliver, could there not be a faster route? It should not take years to decide on proposed alternative settlements for GB (as NI has already been cast off). Commission the commission this summer. Report next Spring, vote in 2023 before an autumn general election. Done.
If there's a referendum by 2023 then I think that's agreeing to a referendum, even if there's stuff like a convention before then.
By kicking it into the long grass I'd take that to mean a referendum is denied until after the next General Election at the earliest.
My proposed referendum would be held across the whole UK - do you support proposal A,B or C etc
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
A good number of them from Dundee. Pretty much every public park in the City is named after them and their piles still sit in Broughty Ferry and on the Perth Road, often broken into flats these days. Scotland gained enormously, disproportionately, from the Raj.
So who in Dundee do I speak to about getting reparations for my antecedents?
I'm not after much, and I'll be generous and ask for compensation from 1858 and not 1757 but I would like interest added/compounded from 1858 onwards.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
The constitutional settlement is clear in my view (although the courts have the final say). The constitutional settlement is a matter for the Westminster parliament. Votes for another body don’t carry weight in determining whether there should be another vote: it’s just a political club. Otherwise - reductio ad absurbum - we should declare war on Germany because Handforth Parish Council votes for it.
That being said - as I write in my header before the last referendum - the lesson from Ireland is that grudging change doesn’t work. You need to get ahead of the curve, agree a settlement and get democratic buy-in.
The solution is a Royal Commission on Constitutional Reform that puts together a recommendation on how to recast the British state. That should then be put to a vote as a package - and all the constituent countries get to vote on it.
I’d imagine that will take several years to work through and will be complicated. So it neatly punts the problem into the long grass from Boris Johnson’s perspective. But even he gets to do the right thing occasionally, even if by accident.
What about the point of the article that if it does get punted into the long grass then it will be a Starmer (or equivalent) in Downing Street when it gets taken out of the grass; at which point we're not just looking at a referendum but most likely electoral reform etc tied with it too.
As ydoethur pointed out, electoral reform does normally occur due to partisan interest not the rights or wrongs of it. If Scotland goes then England won't have a Tory majority forever, the parties will reposition themselves and the pendulum will swing such that when Labour enters Downing Street they'll have a majority in the Commons and as such no reason (like Blair 1997) to engage in electoral reform.
But if this gets punted to the long grass, if Labour are in charge but only able to get a minority - and facing the loss of their partners that give them the majority, then its naive to assume only a Referendum will be dealt with.
The 'price' of punting this issue will be steep and not just upsetting the Scots.
Instead of a long grass "constitutional convention" that is designed to drone on forever and not actually deliver, could there not be a faster route? It should not take years to decide on proposed alternative settlements for GB (as NI has already been cast off). Commission the commission this summer. Report next Spring, vote in 2023 before an autumn general election. Done.
If there's a referendum by 2023 then I think that's agreeing to a referendum, even if there's stuff like a convention before then.
By kicking it into the long grass I'd take that to mean a referendum is denied until after the next General Election at the earliest.
My proposed referendum would be held across the whole UK - do you support proposal A,B or C etc
How does that work? What happens if England votes for A, but Scotland votes for C?
Excellent article Philip and we are both very much on the same page apart from one rather important detail in as much I believe in the union while you are content for the divorce. However, I know that if HMG win the indyref2 you would see that as democracy in action
Yesterday afternoon on this forum was the most intense and enlightening discussion on independence I have been involved in and for those taking part it must have been an eye opener as topics like UK continuing to pay Scottish pensions, Scottish passports, and the effect on the Scottish border were discussed
I have to say, and with respect, to our independence supporters their lack of detail and even serious discussion on complex matters was both alarming and disturbing
As was commented that Scottish pension payments would be a matter for discussion with the RUK government will scare Scots to the point I believe this could be the SNP's poll tax on speed. Nothing could be more destabilising than creating uncertainty over responsibility for future pension payments to the Scots
The other point to watch is the recent movement against independence in the polls and whether Nicola absenting herself from the TV debate will be noticed. My wife and I have noticed, as have others, that that bubbling self confidence seems to have disappeared and she does not seem as sure of herself as she did in her daily covid conferences
However, I do agree that if the Scots vote for indyref2 then the issue must receive serious consideration by HMG and ultimately permit a section 30 application, and then go out and win for the union
G, you really do talk through your rear end. You added zero to the argument yesterday other than some vacuous waffle that Scots would lose their pensions. A purely specious personal uneducated opinion. Give it a rest ghat you are an expert on Scotland and all matters pertaining to it because you lived there 60 years ago.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
Underlying important fundamentals aside, this is one of the most entertaining elections in my lifetime. If anyone fancies a bet on the Galloway comedy vehicle getting a seat, let me know and we’ll see if we can fashion a mutually satisfying price.
ISTM that people in Scotland do like most of the rest of us; they vote against parties they don't want. What's clearest is that they don't want a Labour or Conservative government. Whether SNP voters actually want a referendum is beside the point. If they vote SNP, which has a referendum in the manifesto, then the referendum should be held.
Voters can always vote No.
I think other parties focussing their campaigns on not having a referendum is silly.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
I don't think people are cognisient of what fine margins all the parties are working with in Scotland.
The SNP got 46% of the Constituency vote in 2016 and that was not enough to sweep to Constituency seats.
If they 'only' get 46% again then increased Unionist tactical voting would see them lose constituency seats and their list vote is plunging so they might not make them up there.
The Greens massively underperformed their polling in 2016, they got double digit scores in the polls before limping in with 6.5%. But if they did get even a couple of points increase then the could massively increase their representation.
For Con and Lab their constituency vote of 22%ish is a crucial inflection point. Get above that and they can make gains from the SNP, dip even a little bit below that and they can suffer a bunch of constituency losses.
There is a lot of marginal constituencies in Scotland. People confuse a 23 point vote lead with a dominat position.
I was out for a walk with a pro Indy pal yesterday and he said he’d had quite a depressing chat with an SNP activist from Glasgow Southside who confessed, contra the usual patter, that they they weren’t getting a great response on the doorsteps and were quite worried about Nicola’s seat. Govanhill has been a favourite drum to beat for anti SNPers for years and with the likes of Wings happily pushing a decapitate Sturgeon strategy, things aren’t quite as rosy as one would hope. Sarwar also seems effective at organising voting in minority sections of the community; I don’t say that in an accusatory way as the SNP have also been good at this in the past. Prime anecdata I know, but a straw in the wind perhaps..
Anyhoo, from a pro Indy POV, more comforting if entirely expected confirmation of Sarwar being a fairly empty vessel.
TUD would be a great favour if Sarwar put her out , she is a real liability now. Unfortunately it would then be likely Macbeth would get the leadership and the same bunch of supine roasters would remain in place. It really needs a decent contingent of ALBA seats to put a rocket up their arses and make them do something other than the mince they are mucking about with at present.
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Was he drunk?
An interesting take in this on 5 live this morning.
Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
Jog on lose no-one is interested in your drivel
...even more psychological projection. It is a fact that your Mr Angry Little Scotlander attitudes personifies and proves everything that is repulsive about Scottish Nationalism. Such a shame for Scotland that there are people like Mr Salmond that deliberately exploit poor gullible angry fools like yourself and fill your empty heads with false history and lies. Get some therapy you angry little man.
Someone told me yesterday that an SNP candidate had said they didn't need to worry about what currency to use after the referendum because everyone uses plastic....
Scotcoin ?
I have always disliked Scottish notes and have done my best to avoid them. Down South, if you present one to pay something, you are looked on as though you are a fraudster.
Interesting article, thanks Philip. A few thoughts:
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
Err,,mostly Tory in the Scottish Parliament? I think I missed that bit.
David, Think he meant back in olden times when it really was the Raj ruling the colony, before your time.
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did Tory Scotland go? Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories with her poll tax,
The Raj, or British Raj, if that is to what you refer, was the name for the part of the British Empire that ran most of the Indian subcontinent. It was massively overrepresented by Scots.
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
A good number of them from Dundee. Pretty much every public park in the City is named after them and their piles still sit in Broughty Ferry and on the Perth Road, often broken into flats these days. Scotland gained enormously, disproportionately, from the Raj.
So who in Dundee do I speak to about getting reparations for my antecedents?
I'm not after much, and I'll be generous and ask for compensation from 1858 and not 1757 but I would like interest added/compounded from 1858 onwards.
May I refer you to the Prescription and Limitation (S) Act 1973?
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
Ha, ha, nice one Malc ... my PB badge of honour earned. I feel strangely elated, like I've passed some weird initiation and been accepted into an exclusive club.
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi says ventilators are "not working effectively" and the hospital will run out of oxygen in less than an hour. 60 lives are at risk - ANI
BREAKING: 2 New Delhi hospitals treating COVID-19 patients issue SOS, say they're running out of oxygen
---
And in the Far East, COVID on the rise.
BREAKING: Japanese government declares state of emergency in Tokyo, Osaka, Hyogo, and Kyoto due to coronavirus
NEW: Thailand reports 2,070 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record
This still has some way to go globally if my SEIR fag packet calcs are anywhere near correct. NPIs delay infection; vaccines prevent it (slowly) only NPIs and massive takeup can really crush it
Yes, it's probably into July before we could safely open up - with most of the population vacinnated.
I don't think people should be going abroad on holiday until July.
Europe's wave seems to have peaked, though still active in the Balkans. The EU now has 20% vaccination, so about 2 months behind us and on a steeply rising trend. I expect that by July most of Europe will be in as good of place as we are now. It is travel to the rest of the world that is going to be a problem.
Yes, so you agree with me then - July for Europe, and a wait-and-see approach for RoW.
Personally, I am not going past the Isle of Wight this summer, but have booked a late autumn break in Madeira.
I am hoping to go further afield in 2022.
North Devon for me.
I am hoping to get to Bulgaria in September/October.
An acquaintance has booked to go to Rhodes in late May. Her daughter's family are booked to join her for the second week.
My acquaintance's view of a possible travel ban involving Rhodes after she's gone is that if it happens before her daughter joins her, her daughter will be wild with envy.
I'd be more worried about being stranded, myself. What happens when your money runs out?
There may be a nationalist majority in May but that does not mean there will be an SNP majority, indeed on the Comres poll yesterday the SNP would win only 62 MSPs, not only short of the 65 they need for a Holyrood majority but even below the 63 they won in 2016 before Brexit. If that was to be the case there would clearly be no mandate at all for an indyref2 and the UK Tory government would correctly refuse such a legal indyref2. https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Even if Sturgeon went ahead and held one anyway as there was still a Nationalist majority combining SNP, Green and Alba MSPs Boris and the UK government would correctly ignore the result and respect the 2014 once in a generation vote.
It is also a myth to say Scots want a vote immediately, Yougov has found in its latest Scottish poll this month for example that 54% of Scots oppose an indyref2 this year, 55% of Scots oppose an indyref2 next year and 49% of Scots oppose an indyref2 before 2023 to just 34% in favour. Scots do back an indyref2 in the next 5 years by 44% to 40% but that is only a slim margin and would take us past the next UK general election in 2024 when it could be a decision for a PM Starmer anyway. https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/gat47c3kha/TimesResults_Scotland_210420_W.pdf
If that were to be the case and Starmer then introduced PR so be it, I have no great love for FPTP and voted for AV in 2011 as Australia already has. Even if a future Labour government introduced full PR as Germany, New Zealand, Spain and Italy already have that would not bother me either. If the right of the Tories went to Reform UK and UKIP and the left of Labour went to the Greens and started a new Corbynite party as those minor parties would be more likely to win MPs under PR so be it. It would be more representative of votes cast. However it would actually make centrist governments and coalitions more likely as any government would need to win over 50% of the vote, the only one of our governments to do since the war was the 2010-2015 coalition government which won 59% in 2010 (36% for the Cameron Tories and 23% for Clegg's LDs) and that was a pretty competent government overall.
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi says ventilators are "not working effectively" and the hospital will run out of oxygen in less than an hour. 60 lives are at risk - ANI
BREAKING: 2 New Delhi hospitals treating COVID-19 patients issue SOS, say they're running out of oxygen
---
And in the Far East, COVID on the rise.
BREAKING: Japanese government declares state of emergency in Tokyo, Osaka, Hyogo, and Kyoto due to coronavirus
NEW: Thailand reports 2,070 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record
This still has some way to go globally if my SEIR fag packet calcs are anywhere near correct. NPIs delay infection; vaccines prevent it (slowly) only NPIs and massive takeup can really crush it
Yes, it's probably into July before we could safely open up - with most of the population vacinnated.
I don't think people should be going abroad on holiday until July.
Europe's wave seems to have peaked, though still active in the Balkans. The EU now has 20% vaccination, so about 2 months behind us and on a steeply rising trend. I expect that by July most of Europe will be in as good of place as we are now. It is travel to the rest of the world that is going to be a problem.
A pity we chose to turn it into a competition with the rest of Europe. In a few months we'll all be in the same place and the only legacy will be that our ex EU partners think a little bit less of us than they did already.
Philip the problem with your argument is that the people of Scotland were asked and gave a clear answer 8 years ago. A modern state cannot accommodate the losers repeated demanding a do-over. The bullshit about “this time it is different” because of X is just that
The constitutional settlement is clear in my view (although the courts have the final say). The constitutional settlement is a matter for the Westminster parliament. Votes for another body don’t carry weight in determining whether there should be another vote: it’s just a political club. Otherwise - reductio ad absurbum - we should declare war on Germany because Handforth Parish Council votes for it.
That being said - as I write in my header before the last referendum - the lesson from Ireland is that grudging change doesn’t work. You need to get ahead of the curve, agree a settlement and get democratic buy-in.
The solution is a Royal Commission on Constitutional Reform that puts together a recommendation on how to recast the British state. That should then be put to a vote as a package - and all the constituent countries get to vote on it.
I’d imagine that will take several years to work through and will be complicated. So it neatly punts the problem into the long grass from Boris Johnson’s perspective. But even he gets to do the right thing occasionally, even if by accident.
What about the point of the article that if it does get punted into the long grass then it will be a Starmer (or equivalent) in Downing Street when it gets taken out of the grass; at which point we're not just looking at a referendum but most likely electoral reform etc tied with it too.
As ydoethur pointed out, electoral reform does normally occur due to partisan interest not the rights or wrongs of it. If Scotland goes then England won't have a Tory majority forever, the parties will reposition themselves and the pendulum will swing such that when Labour enters Downing Street they'll have a majority in the Commons and as such no reason (like Blair 1997) to engage in electoral reform.
But if this gets punted to the long grass, if Labour are in charge but only able to get a minority - and facing the loss of their partners that give them the majority, then its naive to assume only a Referendum will be dealt with.
The 'price' of punting this issue will be steep and not just upsetting the Scots.
Instead of a long grass "constitutional convention" that is designed to drone on forever and not actually deliver, could there not be a faster route? It should not take years to decide on proposed alternative settlements for GB (as NI has already been cast off). Commission the commission this summer. Report next Spring, vote in 2023 before an autumn general election. Done.
If there's a referendum by 2023 then I think that's agreeing to a referendum, even if there's stuff like a convention before then.
By kicking it into the long grass I'd take that to mean a referendum is denied until after the next General Election at the earliest.
My proposed referendum would be held across the whole UK - do you support proposal A,B or C etc
How does that work? What happens if England votes for A, but Scotland votes for C?
Would independence be an option?
The constitutional convention will create a proposal - option A. Or we can reject it for the status quo - option B. Or we can dissolve the UK - option C. If England votes for option B and everyone else option C then it is done - no more UK.
We have to find an acceptable form of nation state that works or accept that it is over.
Sorry, I am not really following this. I do not see the link between Indyref2 and electoral reform.
The principles of an Indyref were set down in 2014. I don't see them changing. The important point is that Scotland is effectively a single constituency for the vote so every vote counts. This is of course different for the Scottish Parliament where 40 odd percent can give you a majority. It may give you a majority but it does not give you a compelling basis for Indyref2. That requires a majority of Scots to vote for parties committed to that referendum. On current polling that is going to be very close. It is possible that it will be achieved in one category (most likely the constituencies) and not the other. The less clear cut it is the easier it will be for Boris to say no.
The link David is that if Scotland votes for a referendum, but the Tories deny permission to hold the referendum then this issue is left unresolved like a bomb waiting to go off ...
... Then if Labour get in, they're most likely to do so with SNP controlling Scotland still. So they'll be a minority Government ...
... So then Labour will have to deal with the Scottish issue. But they'll also, with the SNP, control Westminster. They'll be able to change more than just allowing a referendum - if they're facing the lack of a majority and the potential lack of Scottish MPs that allow them to get a majority, then why not change the voting system prior to the referendum?
If on the other hand Scottish independence is resolve by the Tories one way or another this issue never comes up. If the Scottish MPs go then whoever controls Westminster has a majority since there's no major third party. If Labour get in its because they've won a majority like Blair so no need to change the system. If the Scottish MPs stay its because the Scots have for a second time rejected independence, at which point the SNP fracturing (like BQ did after losing the second Quebecois referendum) becomes quite possible.
The questions are not linked. If we have a referendum and vote no again then it is still entirely possible that Boris will lose his majority in 2024 and SKS will become PM with SNP support. It is possible that he will use that majority to try and push through electoral reform but the precedent of the AV vote would be that that would also go to a referendum for the whole of the UK.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
They're linked because if Scotland votes for a referendum in 2021, but its denied by Westminster stoking a genuine grievance to be nursed by the SNP for the next three years, then you can pretty much guarantee close to 100% of Scottish seats will be SNP.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
Good, thought provoking header Philip, thanks.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster 2. The price of that support is Indyref2 3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England 4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
The halfwitted Little Englanders pop up with their pathetic whining about how they pay for Scotland. Go bile your heid you cretin, I resent the amount of tax I pay to keep Little Englander morons like you out of poverty
News item: The world's smallest minded "Little Scotlander" accuses English people of being "Little Englanders" for no better reason than him being so dense he can think of nothing witty.
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
You odious little creep, pretending a cretin like yourself could ever have a friend is a laugh. I bet I have seen and lived in many more places in the world than a cretinous Little Englander like you. Take your bile and stick it where the sun does not shine.
A little more psychological projection there. You really need help.
Not from the likes of you, jog on creep.
Are you sure? You would make a very interesting case.... lol. Such a shame I am only an amateur psychologist. I do know people who do it professionally who are online. I am sure they would love to take you on. Probably for free!
OT. Anyone hear Johnson at the climate conference yesterday.......
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Comments
But I think Scots are fair minded enough to accept a delay if they know they’ll get a fair vote on the proposal.
I think ALBA will do a lot better than current expectations, just a pity they did not get started a bit earlier. SNP need cleared out , Sturgeon will run them into the ground for personal gain along with her odious creep of a better half.
I am hoping to get to Bulgaria in September/October.
For me, as a democrat, the question is whether Scotland has voted by an overall majority for a second referendum. If they do then that should be respected and acceded to. If they don't the issue is moot for at least the next 5 years and our politicians may be forced into doing something useful like running the bloody country. Which would make a nice change.
I'd like to stay longer to debate it but the sun is up in Gloucestershire, and possibly elsewhere too, so I'll just have to say I concur but doubt the Government will have the wisdom to listen to his words.
And will that I'll have to say play nicely and I'll catch you all later.
Anyhoo, from a pro Indy POV, more comforting if entirely expected confirmation of Sarwar being a fairly empty vessel.
https://twitter.com/c4ciaran/status/1385311529462022144?s=21
However, is the article arguing from a principle or form a strategic perspective? Both get squeezed in - the argument about consent; and then the argument about 'getting your blow in first' before Labour get into power - the general area of low cunning, the staple food of politics.
About principle; there are two big properly competing claims: Manifestos and election results against not holding referendums too often. With a second referendum in changed circumstances (rather than a fifth in similar ones, say) both positions are powerful and probably pretty evenly balanced.
About low cunning; All answers come from a point of view. (1) Nicola and co: They will in fact only want an Indyref2 when they can be fairly sure they can win it. They can't. So, ignore the huffing and puffing, they won't want one.
(2) Boris and co: Because of (1) above their best plan is to wait and see for now while keeping on a low boil the 'generation' argument. However keep open the secret option of calling Ref2 at theur own choice of time
(3) Labour; Have no good options as their only route to power is through the SNP. So must hope Boris's wheels come off so completely that they are the only choice. In terms of 'policy' it is a repeat of their Brexit problem: There are no good policies to have because of the mixed nature of their supporters base.
(4) Salmond: You would need a heart of stone not to laugh.
There is no alternative however, listening to the opposition is very depressing , not one of them have a clue, 3rd raters to a person.
We need independence to at least get rid of existing political parties and hopefully get some real ones started up.
There are strong rumours that things are not happy chez Sturgeon and her ducking out of the leaders debate is perhaps evidence of that. She has not been her usual resilient self recently.
If OTOH the SNP lose the referendum then its not a case of being denied, they're for a second time losers. Sturgeon will resign, ALBA will blame Sturgeon and there will be a split in the Scottish nationalist vote. This happened after the BQ lost their second referendum for instance. In which case the SNP are less likely to hold as many Westminster MPs in 2024 and Labour and the Tories are more likely to hold a majority in their own right.
Plus if the referendum issue is closed then if Labour do win in 2024 with SNP support they won't be facing the potential imminent loss of those MPs.
There seems to be an assumption that Lab could just change the electoral system. But surely the precedent has now been long set that this would need a referendum?
"We need to get stories about BoZo's incredibly poor judgement off the front pages"
"Let's leak a story that Dominic Cummings should never have been employed here?"
"Genius!!!"
"This is not all about a green act ...of ...of ...of ...of bunny hugging or however you want to put it ...not that there's anything wrong with bunny hugging..."
Was he drunk?
* It's certainly true that IndyRef2 can't be refused indefinitely if Scots keep voting for parties that want it. We are internationally a bit inconsistent on consent where we don't like the implications (should Crimeans be allowed to be Russian?), but "You're British, suck it up" is not an acceptable policy. If we agree that, then it comes down to haggling over dates, and "end of the next Parliament" seems reasonable.
* An Indyref2 may well result is another "No". The decline of N Sea oil is a problem for the "Yes" case, and not everyone who votes Green in particular is necessarily a Yes voter.
* The article assumes the indefinite duration of SNP dominance. Scottish Parliamentary representation has changed dramatically twice in my lifetime (from mostly Tory to mostly Labour to nearly all SNP). It may change again.
* Any Labour decision on PR won't be primarily determined by Scotland, but by the perceived chance of a majority without it (for which Scotland is relevant but not the only factor) and the perceived balance of advantage in cooperation with the LibDems and Greens. There is a minority (me included) who simply want PR as a Good Thing and a minority who hate it as a Bad Thing, but the majority are pragmatic about it, including, I think, Starmer.
As I understand it, you are saying:
1. Labour needs SNP support to get into power in Westminster
2. The price of that support is Indyref2
3. Once in power the quid pro quo for agreeing Indyref2 is a change to the voting system to give Labour a chance in England
4. Therefore it would be better for the Tories to seize the agenda and grant Indyref2 so that they keep FPTP in England
So, the consequence of that would be that the Tories campaign for the Union but hope secretly that they lose it. But what if they win it? (Yesterday's discussion about pensions, the unresolved currency issue and the vaccine rollout gives the Union a fighting chance).
Do you really think the SNP support would fracture? Maybe in the short term but not in the longer term. Thanks to devolution, the ridiculous Scottish government would still be in place and still dominated by the SNP. They'd be back agitating, soaking the English taxpayer and demanding Indyref3 within a few short years and we'd be back to square one. So, is there a quid pro quo for the Tories that would put Indyref3 to bed for a real generation this time, say 25, or better 50, years?
While I was initially open minded on voting for Alba, supporters encouraging me to get rid of SNP msps in the constituency while giving them my vote on the list aren’t really persuading me.
Firstly, I would be very surprised if Labour introduce electoral reform. If they are in a coalition government then I think there are enough opponents on the Labour backbenches to stop any proposal, and if they have a large enough majority to force it through the motivation will dissipate.
Secondly, I think the link between the independence referendum and electoral reform is a different one to the link PT makes. Which is that they are both things that if the Tories think they are inevitable results of the next Labour government then they would be best advised to do them first, so that they have more control over how they are done.
As our often interminable arguments demonstrate there are more ways to reform the voting system than there are variants of SARS-Cov-2. Surely it would be better for Tories to make that choice, rather than leave it to their opponents.
I also think that the Tories have a lot less to fear from electoral reform than they think, or the "progressive alliance" hopes.
Edit: but are you really arguing that Tony Blair wasn’t a liar?
The Tories were the most successful party in Scottish
electoral politics from 1912 till 1964. In the general election of 1955, they
won a majority of votes and a majority of seats – the only party in Scotland ever
to have achieved that double. Even the SNP landslide in the Scottish
parliamentary elections did not match that. So what happened? Where did
Tory Scotland go?
Most people would answer that Margaret Thatcher killed the Scottish Tories
with her poll tax,
Put away your hate Malcolm. There are good English people and bad English people, with varying opinions. There are good Scots people (I am friends with a number) but there are also twatish ones like you. When the pandemic is over I suggest you travel a bit more and see the world. It will do you good. You could try visiting some war graves, it will show you where hate-filled nationalism always leads.
If only the SNP were as generous and interested in independence rather than wasting votes so they do not get a majority and can kick Indyref2 into the long grass for another 5 years on the gravy train. Personally I hope we do not see Macbeth at the top table again and a few others disappear after the court cases flush them out.
And the "generation" argument is hogwash. Brexit + a Holyrood mandate is a compelling rationale. There seems to be a view amongst some who wish to deny a Ref on these grounds that the Scots will otherwise be forever demanding and getting a vote on independence and then voting "No" to it. Kind of trolling us all like this. This betrays a very shallow and jaundiced view of the Scottish people.
The average voter appear to favour some form of PR.
https://www.markpack.org.uk/166438/british-public-supports-proportional-representation-42-33/
Edit: lol, it’s even got its own Wiki entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Brexit_Done
https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1385465534599270400
Nationalists' grasp of history is always weakened by the number of books they ban or burn.
There are many wrongs and problems to be sorted and we do not have the politician's to do it. If I did not have grandkids locally I would be gone out of UK, I should have stayed in USA years ago when I had the chance.
Yesterday afternoon on this forum was the most intense and enlightening discussion on independence I have been involved in and for those taking part it must have been an eye opener as topics like UK continuing to pay Scottish pensions, Scottish passports, and the effect on the Scottish border were discussed
I have to say, and with respect, to our independence supporters their lack of detail and even serious discussion on complex matters was both alarming and disturbing
As was commented that Scottish pension payments would be a matter for discussion with the RUK government will scare Scots to the point I believe this could be the SNP's poll tax on speed. Nothing could be more destabilising than creating uncertainty over responsibility for future pension payments to the Scots
The other point to watch is the recent movement against independence in the polls and whether Nicola absenting herself from the TV debate will be noticed. My wife and I have noticed, as have others, that that bubbling self confidence seems to have disappeared and she does not seem as sure of herself as she did in her daily covid conferences
However, I do agree that if the Scots vote for indyref2 then the issue must receive serious consideration by HMG and ultimately permit a section 30 application, and then go out and win for the union
If Scotland gets a referendum, but they lose it fair and square, then I think people will start to move on (while if they win it this all becomes moot).
The final paragraph matches my point. If Scotland has SNP dominance in 2024 (because Scotland was denied a referendum) then the "pragmatic" thing for a PM Starmer reliant upon the SNP to do is go for PR.
I'm not after much, and I'll be generous and ask for compensation from 1858 and not 1757 but I would like interest added/compounded from 1858 onwards.
Would independence be an option?
https://twitter.com/gerryhassan/status/1385294781316751366?s=21
https://twitter.com/bellacaledonia/status/1385342703152533504?s=21
ISTM that people in Scotland do like most of the rest of us; they vote against parties they don't want. What's clearest is that they don't want a Labour or Conservative government. Whether SNP voters actually want a referendum is beside the point. If they vote SNP, which has a referendum in the manifesto, then the referendum should be held.
Voters can always vote No.
I think other parties focussing their campaigns on not having a referendum is silly.
Good morning, everyone.
Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite
My acquaintance's view of a possible travel ban involving Rhodes after she's gone is that if it happens before her daughter joins her, her daughter will be wild with envy.
I'd be more worried about being stranded, myself. What happens when your money runs out?
ETA you becomes your.
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Even if Sturgeon went ahead and held one anyway as there was still a Nationalist majority combining SNP, Green and Alba MSPs Boris and the UK government would correctly ignore the result and respect the 2014 once in a generation vote.
It is also a myth to say Scots want a vote immediately, Yougov has found in its latest Scottish poll this month for example that 54% of Scots oppose an indyref2 this year, 55% of Scots oppose an indyref2 next year and 49% of Scots oppose an indyref2 before 2023 to just 34% in favour. Scots do back an indyref2 in the next 5 years by 44% to 40% but that is only a slim margin and would take us past the next UK general election in 2024 when it could be a decision for a PM Starmer anyway.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/gat47c3kha/TimesResults_Scotland_210420_W.pdf
If that were to be the case and Starmer then introduced PR so be it, I have no great love for FPTP and voted for AV in 2011 as Australia already has. Even if a future Labour government introduced full PR as Germany, New Zealand, Spain and Italy already have that would not bother me either. If the right of the Tories went to Reform UK and UKIP and the left of Labour went to the Greens and started a new Corbynite party as those minor parties would be more likely to win MPs under PR so be it. It would be more representative of votes cast. However it would actually make centrist governments and coalitions more likely as any government would need to win over 50% of the vote, the only one of our governments to do since the war was the 2010-2015 coalition government which won 59% in 2010 (36% for the Cameron Tories and 23% for Clegg's LDs) and that was a pretty competent government overall.
We have to find an acceptable form of nation state that works or accept that it is over.
https://twitter.com/susanprice4/status/1385348132272328704?s=21